This chapter is a discussion of why the idea of compromise goes against rational, moral thinking. Rand defines compromise as "an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions" (p. 68). In other words, in a situation where two people value two different things (ideas, theories, strategies, property, etc.) based on their individual rational judgments, a "compromise" arises when each individual adjusts their principles to form one common agreement. However, this, she says, does not exist. If two people believe in two different ideas based on different values and judgments, a common agreement that will encompass each idea in their entirety will never arise. One person must give up one's ideas, and this is surrender. She uses the example of governmental policy to illustrate her point that compromise is synonymous with relinquishing one's freedom. She says that to...